92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-12472
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 91-49 753 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
paranoid schizophrenia.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc.
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
M. S. Raubertas, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) from rating decisions of the
St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO).
The veteran had active military service from March 1968 to
March 1971. A November 1990 rating action confirmed and
continued a noncompensable disability evaluation for
paranoid schizophrenia. A notice of disagreement with this
determination was received in February 1991. The statement
of the case was issued in March 1991 and a substantive
appeal was received from the veteran in the same month. The
veteran was afforded a personal hearing before a hearing
officer at the regional office in June 1991. Additional
evidence was received and the hearing officer issued a
decision in September 1991. The supplemental statement of
the case was issued in October 1991. The case was received
at the Board in November 1991 and docketed in December
1991. The case was referred to the veteran's accredited
representative and that organization submitted written
argument on behalf of the veteran in January 1992. The case
is now ready for appellate review.
REMAND
Recent treatment records show that the veteran has been
hospitalized on numerous occasions for alcohol abuse. He
entered an alcohol treatment program in early 1991 and
apparently abstained from alcohol at least through the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination of August
1991. During that time, the veteran was seen in the mental
health clinic in April 1991. The impression recorded
included schizophrenia. It was indicated that psychiatric
followup was needed. Subsequent records dated in May and
June 1991 show that he was diagnosed variously as paranoid
schizophrenia and generalized anxiety disorder, respec-
tively. Both Thorazine and Librium had been prescribed.
The VA examination of August 1991 noted psychiatric
symptomatology including paranoia, homicidal ideation,
depression, anxiety, emotional lability and lack of coherent
or relevant speech. Nevertheless, the examiner provided a
diagnosis of alcohol abuse and schizophrenia, paranoid type,
by history only. We note that the examiner apparently did
not have the veteran's prior treatment records available at
the time of the examination.
VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a);
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a). This duty includes obtaining a VA
examination where the medical record is inadequate.
Littke v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet. App. No. 89-68 (December 6,
1990). In light of the apparent inconsistency between the
noted psychiatric symptomatology and the lack of a
psychiatric diagnosis, we believe that it would be
appropriate to have the veteran examined by a board of
psychiatrists in order to determine the extent of his
service-connected psychiatric disorder. Accordingly, the
case is REMANDED for the following action:
The veteran should be examined by a board
of two psychiatrists to determine the
severity of his service-connected
schizophrenia. The examiners should
report their findings in detail and have
access to the claims folder. If multiple
psychiatric diagnoses are appropriate,
the examiners should attempt to catalog
the symptoms attributable to each
diagnosis. If the veteran's symptoms are
attributable to organic brain syndrome,
this should be so stated.
When the requested development has been completed, the case
should again be reviewed by the agency of original
jurisdiction. In the event the action taken remains adverse
to the veteran, he and his representative should be provided
with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a
reasonable period of time within which to respond.
Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate. No action is required of the
veteran until he receives further notice. The purpose of
this REMAND is to obtain clarifying evidence and no
inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of
the appeal.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
*
IRVIN H. PEISER, M.D.
E. W. SEERY
*38 U.S.C. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (1992) permits a Board of
Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of
the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business
without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the
Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three
Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or
inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on
the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section
proceed with the transaction of business, including the
issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a
third Member.
Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (1992), only a decision of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of
a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of
the Board on the merits of your appeal.